OpenStreetMap
rskedgell's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 133530857 | over 2 years ago | Reverted in osm.org/changeset/133684107
|
| 133530973 | over 2 years ago | Reverted in osm.org/changeset/133684107
|
| 133678259 | over 2 years ago | Hi, Unfortunately, you renamed roads in the live OpenStreetMap data instead of the copy you presumably intended to use for your routing project. Reverted in osm.org/changeset/133683896 |
| 133421302 | over 2 years ago | Hi, Many thanks for adding all these postcodes and street names. Would you consider using the post town (London) as the value of addr:city, rather than the name of the London Borough? While the buildings are within the London Borough of Hackney, it's not really part of the address. |
| 130220509 | over 2 years ago | Now reopened, but with a temporary(?) 7.5t HGV limit. |
| 132227654 | over 2 years ago | Thanks! |
| 132089241 | over 2 years ago | One positive of all this is that we should end up with better pedestrian routing and accessibility mapping across a fair-sized chunk of Hammersmith & Fulham, Brent and RBKC. It's a pity Waymap haven't engaged so far, as really I'd like to find out what they were trying to achieve and help them (within reason) to do it. Once I've done as much as I can with Bing imagery, Mapillary and TfLCID, I'll walk as many of the streets affected with StreetComplete (and boost my ranking on CityStrides as a bonus). Incidentally, I keep meaning to thank you for resolvimg so many of my outstanding notes. |
| 132089241 | over 2 years ago | Sorry, wrong link above:
|
| 132089241 | over 2 years ago | We had a large number of separate sidewalks added following undiscussed organised edits, apparently on on behalf of Waymap (certainly using their tasking manager). It's hard to tell what the intention was, because neither @alisonlung, nor anyone else at Waymap seems keen to discuss the problems. These probably should have breen spotted and reverted months ago, given @alisonlung's habit of "accidentally" breaking bicycle routing. Separate sidewalks are great where they improve pedestrian routing on main roads and around complex junctions. I've added quite a few myself and have preserved (with more detailed tagging) all of those added by this project. Decorative sidewalks on residential streets with few or no crossing points are much less useful for pedestran routing. They're even less useful if they stop at the edge of the task manager square the user is trying to complete, or if the crossings are just nodesv dropped where the user feels a crossing "should" be. Given that Waymap is a routing service for VI users, I thought adding a dozen or so entirely fictitious crossings on the busy Harrow Road was irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. It's taken me 3 weeks so far to salvage useful pedestrian features from these edits. Checking crossings and adding accessibility features will take a couple more. I should stress that I would NEVER simply delete separate sidewalks added by a user who participates in OSM, whether I considered their addition to be a good idea or not. |
| 132046099 | over 2 years ago | Hi, For a location to show up on OpenStreetMap, it needs to have a type and a physical location (not in the middle of Kings Road, unless you want to combine practicing savasana with being a speed hump :-) ) If it's premises used by Trainify for fitness classes and training, use leisure=fitness_centre
If it's Trainify's offices, use office=company
It also helps to add an address
|
| 127892674 | over 2 years ago | These aren't "unmarked crossings", but entirely fictitious crossings. Mapping for the router is generally a bad idea, but adding fake crossing over main roads is irresponsible. What were you asked to do in respect of this project and what feedback, if any, did you get from the user who "validated" your edits?
|
| 127892674 | over 2 years ago | These aren't "unmarked crossings", but entirely fictitious crossings. Mapping for the router is generally a bad idea, but adding fake crossing over main roads is irresponsible. What were you asked to do in respect of this project and what feedback, if any, did you get from the user who "validated" your edits?
|
| 125571896 | over 2 years ago | Another bit of cycle connectivity severed: w27693731 disconnected from a road and reconnected to a footway with no bicycle access.
|
| 125580102 | over 2 years ago | https://tasks.waymap.tech/projects/5
|
| 125652546 | over 2 years ago | More unjustified changes of cycleway->footway. Not a good look if you're working on a VI accessibility project to sabotage cycle accessibility and routing.
|
| 124922829 | over 2 years ago | Adding a pair of fictitious sidewalks to Norland Place was somewhat unhelpful.
|
| 124934291 | over 2 years ago | Deleting cycleways at footways and replacing them with footways (again) could be mere carelessness, but it looks more and more like deliberate vandalism. Why?
|
| 125571896 | over 2 years ago | Just out of interest, how does adding entirely fictitious fords (n9988544343, n9988544313) to sidewalks help routing for VI users of Waymap?
|
| 128180083 | over 2 years ago | @Fizzie41 Noted that a response is unlikely, but worth noting here that the "unmarked crossings" here are mostly (all?) fictitious. It looks like mapping for the router. Sending VI users across main roads via imaginary crossings strikes me as dangerously irresponsible.
|
| 125009209 | over 2 years ago | Hi, This appears to be part of an organised edit. Please could you give the OSM mapping community some information about #waymap-project-SB by adding an entry to the Organised Editing/Activities page at osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities It might also have been beneficial for you and your team to read and follow the Organised Editing Guidelines. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines |